[IRP] Proposal for IRP to register as an At Large Structure
Henrik Almström APC
Wed Oct 6 00:46:43 EEST 2010
I think Meryem's points are good and that the process of becoming a member
as well as the process of deciding if membership is the right thing might
steal momentum from the process of the charter. And pushing the charter
higher on the ALAC agenda would certainly be easier when the charter is
closer to a final version.
2010/10/5 Meryem Marzouki <meryem at marzouki.info>
> Hi Lisa, Wolf, Olivier and all,
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are at least three
> conditions to join ALAC that are not met by the IRP coalition:
> 1- Be an organization, and as far as I understand a registered one, while
> IRP is a loose (not registered) group
> 2- Be a national or regional organization, since ALAC is structured into
> geographic regional structures, e.g. Wolf is proposing to join EURALO, which
> is the European regional structure (made up of regional organizations having
> joined ALAC), while IRP is a global coalition
> 3- Be individual user organizations, while IRP is not only a
> multistakeholder coalition, but also a coalition made up of both individuals
> and various organizations (NGOs, academic institutions, IGOs, businesses,
> See: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/framework.htm for the criteria and
> their explanation.
> These arguments are only with regards to formal membership criteria.
> Most importantly, even if the IRP coalition eventually meets the
> "administrative" membership criteria, we need to collectively discuss from a
> substantive point of you whether it is desirable for it to join ALAC.
> The first issue I see is that we don't have the human resources to do this
> in an effective manner: we already have an important project (the charter)
> which is mobilizing the few resources that we can devote to the IRP work,
> given that all of us are volunteering on this. Are we really able to, in
> addition, substantively participate to ALAC work?
> The second issue, which is related, is: do we want to concentrate on - or
> at least dedicate part of our work to - a single, though important, aspect
> of Internet governance, namely the domain name system and some other
> critical Internet resources, while the very raison d'etre of the coalition,
> namely human rights in the digital environment in a very broad sense
> (including the DNS and CIR as part of this environment constitution:
> remember our discussions on "layers") is far broader?
> The third issue, which is more of a political discussion, is: do we think
> that we should be part of the ALAC and other structures of the ICANN system,
> thus backing - without any discussion - this system?
> These are my thoughts on this proposal. The different issues are exposed
> above in increasing order of both importance and risk for the coalition to
> literally sink in an ICANN-dominated discussion. While it is certainly more
> stimulating to discuss the third substantive issue, I would prefer that one
> of the three administrative issues provides us with the answer, so that the
> coalition may continue to dedicate its resources to our main collective
> project, that is, the Charter.
> Obviously, since we have active members of the IRP who are also part of the
> ALAC members, it would certainly be fruitful that they serve as
> cross-fertilizers of both groups: our work on the Charter might be used by
> the ALAC group working on the "Registrant Bill of Rights / Registrar Best
> Practices" project, and conversely this ALAC group might be really helpful
> by bringing inputs to the Charter provisions concerning DNS/CIR.
> Le 4 oct. 10 ? 12:57, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
> Dear all
>> Please see below a note from Wolf Ludwig, suggesting that the IRP join
>> ALAC-EURALO. Olivier and Rafik have also been looking at how we can best
>> coordinate with ICANN and its networks (ALAC and NCSG).
>> Thanks Wolf for this invitation and for your support.
>> What do people think about this proposal?
>> Olivier - please could you send through the note you drafted before which
>> gives a bit more background about ALAC.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wolf Ludwig [mailto:wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net]
>> Sent: 22 September 2010 15:05
>> To: parminder; Lisa Horner; Meryem Marzouki
>> Cc: b at nwagner.org; Wolfgang Benedek; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP IGF notes
>> Dear Parminder, Lisa and all,
>> as discussed in Vilnius with Lisa, Wolfgang, Ben and others, we were
>> not active to add much input to the IRP Charter discussion and process
>> but we can help to promote its impact.
>> It was Max Senges, Vittorio Bertola and others who organised a WG on
>> IRP at the 1st ICANN Internet User Summit in Mexico in March 2009. In
>> the final declaration of this Summit At-Large at ICANN announced - as
>> a commitment! - that we will follow-up this discussion in related fora
>> (like IGF etc.) and we nominated two people for it. In the time between
>> not so much happened ...
>> The excellent draft what was submitted at the recent IGF offers a good
>> opportunity to re-start the discussion at the ALAC-ICANN level. One
>> option to foster this discussion among ICANN user representatives could
>> be if the dynamic coalition would join ALAC - EURALO as an At-Large
>> Structure (ALS). Such a membership brings EURALO in a position to push
>> the IRP Charter on the ALAC agenda again. Other scenarios can be
>> discussed as well ... It's just to reconfirm that we will try our best to
>> support the further IRP process.
>> Kind regards,
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Association for Progressive Communications, APC
Johannesburg, South Africa
henrik at apc.org
mobile: +27 72 311 9613
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IRP